Re: Comments regarding fonts-cherrybomb_3.00-1_amd64.changes
Hello Sean,
> On Mon 27 Apr 2020 at 10:29AM +02, Gürkan Myczko wrote:
>
>> Good morning,
>>
>>> I'd like to ask for confirmation that documentation/img/* are in their
>>> preferred forms for modification.
>>
>> I guess the gif is generated from the two png images.
>> The pngs are easily generatable using some imagemagick command line
>> script,
>> if you know Japanese (which I don't), an example generating some
>> graphics
>> from text can be found here:
>> http://shell.aiei.ch/typography/
>>
>> I can easily repack the source package dropping them.
>>
>>> The files look to have been created
>>> with Adobe ImageReady and Adobe Photoshop, so upstream may have a
>>> source file for these which is not included in their releases?
>>
>> If you run file documentation/* you see that the .ai files are just
>> PDF documents, just like hte .pdf files. And the *.txt files seem
>> to generate the PDFs... without build scripts.
>>
>>> Similarly, how can I produce documentation/*.pdf from the *.txt files?
>>> We need to be able to do that using tools already in the archive.
>>
>> above referenced makespecimen shell script could be used to create a
>> build
>> system for the pdf documents, i don't feel it's worth my time doing so
>> (see later
>> repackaging question)
>
> Well, we don't even know that the makespecimen script is DFSG-free, so
> yes I think repacking is the right answer here. I will REJECT the
> current version pending repack.
Maybe this helps clarification, Alex Myczko (is me, the same Person as
Gurkan Myczko (with u-umlauts).
I could add a copyright/license to it, but I don't feel this a one line
shell script (derived from imagemagick examples) can be copyright.
It's smaller than the WTFPL. But if you insist, I can do so including
the web interface.
It feels like you want to copyright ruptime | sort -u | rev | tac or
something.
>>> Finally, are the *.otf *.ttf files buildable from the other files in
>>> the package?
>>
>> Since quite some time, I'm only building OTF preferrably over TTF from
>> source,
>> as you can see in debian/rules, the otfs are built:
>>
>> glyphs2ufo sources/CherryBomb-Regular.glyphs
>> ufo2otf sources/CherryBomb-Regular.ufo
>
> I don't know much about fonts.
You don't have to, and if it helps, feel free to ask specific questions.
I tried to explain above, the debian/rules makefile takes source files
and builds them into binary font files.
The sources being glyphs/ufo, and the binaries being ttf/otf (in this
case only otf)
> Are you saying that both the .otf and the .ttf files in the source
> package can be built from the .glyphs and .ufo files present there?
Yes exactly, and not only can be built, they ARE being built, and that
exact builds go into the binary package.
>> Shall we repack source package dropping fonts/ and ver2.50/, and maybe
>> documentation/ also?
>
> You don't need to drop the files that you know you can rebuild.
>
> So I think the only thing to drop is documentation/.
Great, doing so.
Best,
Reply to: